photos and personal information with alleged terrorists. is this report accurate? was this include in the briefing -- was included in the briefing to the president? >> you are talking about the report? >> yes, that. but the information that was not put in there as requested by d.c. i a. >> the article is riddled with inaccuracies. there is only so much i can say about that because there is an ongoing investigation into the core of what was at that article. >> ok. with respect, i have not found much of what is said and response to the legitimate question. in 1998, i came back from algeria where 175,000 people were killed. the bombing took place in

nairobi, kenya and people from my district. died district . . >> the first person killed, i went to his funeral at arlington cemetery.

i am just trying to find out, the pilot of the airplane that went into the pentagon was from my district. we're trying to work in a bipartisan way to do what is best for the country. to make a difference, to make the country safe. i have not had any answers. i can't get an answer out of your department. you said the reference is this letter, this letter, this is the answer. there is no answer. let me move on. >> in regard to the responses we have set up, there are more letters that you have sent to us than responses we have sent back. the responses deal with all of the things that are contained in the letters. >> with respect, i don't think that is accurate. i will put my letters in the record at this point in history can judge whether that is accurate. congress passing, my bill was senator kennedy -- the urgent

need to address the crisis of such abuse in the u.s. correctional facility. the national prison rape elimination spent five years old in public hearings and drafting the recommended national standards. the law requires -- one year after the commission issued the recommendation. you are not going to make that, and prison rape as a serious problem, particularly with young people, but anyone. i can't understand why you have not followed through. what is the status? the budget for 2011 includes a budget -- it leaves $5 million for efforts to address sexual violence.

rape of a person that goes to prison -- and to senator kennedy had that in it. >> i share your concerns about the -- i was a judge. i sent people to prison, and i would not like to think that anybody i said deserves time to deal with the things that the commission uncovered. we were given one year in which to implement it. we're doing the best that we can. we met on three occasions with the chairman of that commission judge. we want to make sure that we get this right.

we want to change the situation, make sure you eliminate it the best you can, the sexual predator activity in prisons, but not increase the amount of money that any local jurisdiction has in order to do that. we will do that as quickly as we can, and the fact that we will not make that deadline is not an indication of the business. i have experience with this in a way that others do not. i know the people that i sent to the facility before was closed. it weighed on my conscience as the judge. it weighs on my conscience as attorney general. i attempt to try to do this, but in the right way. >> i have doubts because of that

very reason. your budget for fiscal year 2011 includes $10 million of reduction in the funding for the program, leaving just $5 million. you can say that you were a judge and you are interested. the reduction is sending the wrong message. you are known by your budget in essence. that is a landmark. every delay -- prison rape is a serious problem. another long delay will mean that more people will be facing this in prison. i am disappointed in the fact that it reduces the funding antis say you're interested. >> with all due respect, it is artificially short given the fact that we gave two years to the commission and only one year to the department to a effectuate it.

>> of the department drug its heels. we brought some of the best minds and to give them adequate time. the department should have enough information to move ahead. people are being raped in prison every day. someone -- to push this off for another year is unacceptable. to reduce your funding -- >> i will do what the statute says that we have to do. we will do it right. let me say one thing. the degree to which we measure seriousness, if you want to save face about money, i have to wonder, what was it to drove -- and that drove this body to say that we have the responsibility to make the changes, to make sure the changes occur, and yet, you cannot have a cost impact? when i speak to wardens and people that run local and state

jails, they looked at me and say, how are we supposed to do this? do we segregate people, build new facilities, new training? that is what we are trying to work out. ways that we can do something that it is going to be meaningful. it is not going to be a show thing. >> we put the legislation in because we talk to people that it happened to. it is not a show thing, it is a reality thing. senator kennedy felt strongly about it. you came up to me last year and said another whole year has gone by. i have no more questions. i yield back. >> let me say that i am serious about it as you do, and my comment was only about that you are taking note of the fact that we reduced our funding.

this is something that they were serious about. they can't spend money in order to effectuate and deal with the problem. >> thank you, chairman. and thank you for being here, mr. attorney-general. at the outset, let me tell you that i appreciate the job you're doing. i can't imagine a more difficult time to be attorney general. >> a good timing on my part. >> i spent six years in the department and l.a., and i have great appreciation for the hard work being done in the department. it has been a rough decade for the department, and in addition to all the challenges, it is a policy matter. it had suffered during the last administration and had been

overly politicized. your predecessor did a good job in trying to do that around and continuing the rebuilding of the department. the issue of how to deal with the detainees is difficult, and i appreciate the seriousness and thoughtfulness that you brought to this task. reviewing every day teen -- detainee, if there were easy answers to these questions, they would have been decided a long time ago. these are issues of a legal matter, we have not faced these ever. you can talk about the prosecution of nazi saboteurs during world war ii, but the

terrorism that we face now is such a different environment. we are comparing apples to oranges. i appreciate your effort to tone down the volume and take the politics out of it. i see the justice department attack for the same thing the last administration did in terms of repatriating detainee's when there were no attacks on the last administration for doing that or a tax on your department for arresting a suspect like a christmas day bomber when the shoe bomber was given exactly the same treatment. that smacks of not a policy driven search for what is the best approach, but rather a political process. but you have, i think, done a

great job and have stated focus on your mission -- focused on your mission. some of the hyperbole that has surrounded the detainee issue, and the sense that, what our people are doing? we should never try a terrorism case and the federal courts? the oklahoma city bombers that blew up a federal building were tried in a civilian court. the people in the justice department that as the people in the justice department now worked night and today and weekends and holidays to try to bring these people to justice and put them away or seek the death penalty. that is what they should be doing, they are not out there to coddle criminals. i don't think we can adopt a blanket policy of never try terrorist and a civilian court. that should say -- that would say that all terrorism cases are the same, and they are not. what we need to do is what the

department is doing, looking at each case. and asking what is the nature of this case, who is the defendant? where did they come from? what is the goal of the attack? where did the evidence derived from? they try it in a public civilian form. they can't be made in a vacuum, and they can't be made by the congress trying to decide without the benefit of knowing where the evidence is -- you have troops arrested on the field of battle -- for the duration of this contract.

in this case is, there may not be uniform treatment. you may decide to try an american in a military setting. n'i dot think one size fits all. one thing that we have to recognize is that there is no free lunch in leaving gitmo the way it is or trying people in military commissions. it is a terrific recruiting tool for al qaeda. balanced against the criticisms that have been raised about incarcerating some of the detainees, we have asked we still have a -- it is no free

lunch. the comparison topic is dna. when we last had a chance to talk during testimony, your goal was to backlog. i am interested to know if it is coming and if we are still on track. you bring the technology to try to collect and upload these samples and do it much quicker. i want to ask you where we were on that. 39 positions were filled.

the other questions that i wanted to ask about the technical review of dna evidence. there are hundreds of jurisdictions, obviously, around the country dealing with dna profiles. there are backlogs of over 70,000 sexual assault kits. both the county in the city have outsourced those kits to private labs that are equipped to handle the huge number and that amount of time. this has been successful in reducing or eliminating some of these backlogs, but there is a substantial question about whether there is a lot of waste andd effort. i worked with the chairman so we can work on me lapd backlog. they used to hire technicians to

do technical review. these frantic scientists were not testing the evidence themselves. they were simply checking the work of other highly trained scientists at the private labs, a step that the fbi requires. you have the samples that may be cleaned up in the backlog. before they can be uploaded, it has to be retested in a government lab. according to the director there though, there was a single error found in the technical review that would have resulted in any direct data. is this requirement of a 100% review really desirable? it is responsible for a big chunk of delay and a big expense. it is not going to improve the quality. why are we doing it? even if there was a problem, and

a sample got in correctly loaded -- incorrectly lo aded, if there was a match made, then there has to be the technical review. where we are in the backlog removing the requirement of the technical review might be great. we gave up -- >> i think your suggestion is an interesting one, dealing with

those samples. it is an interesting idea that might need to be considered. looking at the information here they provided about $3 million for dna analysis requested, 135,000 backlogged cases 1.6 million database samples -- there is $150 million of the dna initiative to deal with the backlog and to deal with ways in which we can come out of this

very promising technology and efficiency. people think of dna as the thing that springs people who are unjustly accused of a crime, and it certainly has had an impact. it is also a very important law enforcement tool that convict people who have committed very serious crimes, and so it is something that i have to be -- we have to do it in the right way, in an efficient way. >> are you on track to eliminate the backlog? how is that coming? what do we do to get it back on track? >> what i will do is get back to

you at the conclusion of the hearing and give you a sense of where we stand, and we will have a sense of how to get that eliminated. >> and we talk about these scat funding, it had been -- i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, mr. attorney-general for appearing before us. they have the same rights as charles manson, correct? >> i said that murderers have the same rights as charles manson. if these people are charged with murder, that is the kind of

rights they would get. >> and terrorists have the same rights as charles manson? >> in the sense that a murderer has the right to go before a jury, get the ax that he is charged with proved beyond a reasonable doubt, yes. >> osama bin laden has the same rights as charles manson. >> they are comparable people in some ways. >> that is incredible. that is for the disconnect between this administration in your mindset is completely opposite that of where the vast majority of the american people are. my constituents and i have deep- seated and profound philosophical differences. in a time of war, we have never

given constitutional rights to foreign nationals, and many soldiers -- enemy soldiers, certainly captured overseas. he asked the question, you could not provide him with an example, can you provide us an example of when in a time of war the united states has never granted a four and na -- foreign national u .s. national rights? >> this is a situation that is different than anything we have ever seen before. there were people in uniform where you had a signing ceremonies that and the declarations on battleships. that is not the kind of war that we are facing. and even though we try to analogize the rules, they don't

necessarily apply. what osama bin laden is responsible for our both acts of war and criminal acts. when i was referring to the charles manson analogy, i was talking about the rights that he had with the court room. i understand that we are at war with al qaeda, that is why we have 30,000 additional troops and why we are taking all kinds of other measures that i can't talk about in pakistan. we are not fighting this from a law-enforcement preventive mode. we're using law-enforcement as a military means to defeat the enemy. >> which is why you support the second circuit court's decision to detain a u.s. citizen and an enemy combat and on u.s. soil? >> it is not clear that the

united states has the -- an american citizen on american soil. there are other tools that the executive branch had to effectuate the incapacitation of that person as opposed to simply locking them away and not giving them a lawyer. >> the president has other tools. the president is the commander in chief. this is where the profound disconnect comes between where america is and where you are in this administration and where this leadership of the congress is. >> there is a split between america and the leadership in this administration, i would disagree with that. >> there is a disconnect. even the voters of

massachusetts, as liberal at a different from the are from my constituents in texans -- in texas, those voters understand in massachusetts that he does not have the same rights as charles manson. >> he has the same rights within a court room. >> your clothing osama bin laden with the realities of the constitution, giving rights to enemy soldiers that is a profound problem, sir. >> you're talking about a hypothetical problem that will never occur. he will never appear in an american court room. that is a reality. >> but it is your position that you believe, on a case by case basis, year to the sea would be to grant constitutional rights to enemy soldiers captured on

foreign battlefields. has that ever been done before in u.s. history? >> i assume your a supporter of military commissions. >> on u.s. soil, they were on the beaches of florida and along violent -- >> those people are given constitutional rights, are they not? >> they are not " with all the protections of the u.s. constitution. they are treated by the military as enemy combatants captured at a time of war. >> but they are not put up against a wall and shot. they have rights of lawyers. the of the same constitutional rights. >> the mid tillage -- the military tribunal is different. we are at war, just as we were with the germans in world war two. the people fighting were such powers that they clothe themselves as women and hide behind children as they did it

in the gaza strip. it is the president goes irresponsibility, and he has granted great discretion by the u.s. supreme court and as commander-in-chief, deciding when and where it try these people. it was president roosevelt's decision. it was present bullish -- bush's decision that they not be tried in civilian court and given a full protection of the constitution because we are at war. time lost interrogating these people means live lost. when you look at race, it is not only because the people oppose the health care plan, the administration consistently -- we heard that you said that osama bin laden should get the

same rights as charles manson. it is just profoundly different that has never been done before. >> on a case by case basis, you can make the -- there are things you cannot do in military positions. we have the ability to incarcerate people for extended periods. one only has to look at what has happened through the use of the article 3 courts to see the plots we've broken up, the intelligence we have gathered. that cannot be denied. it is where fax run into

everything you are saying. >> forgive me, my time is limited. i respect your opinion, but it is one that we will disagree with. i think the nation will overwhelmingly disagree with you, that enemy soldiers captured in a time of war, particularly on foreign battlefields should not be given the protection of the u.s. constitution. they should be tried as military soldiers. the goal is to protect the people of the united states. your focus has been on when and where and what rights they should be given. >> the focus is on how they are incapacitated, how they are disrupted, how they are held accountable. that is my focus. i have used both in the

determination's i have made, not afraid to use military commission. >> forgive me for interrupting, but the specific example, the case being tried in new york. the obama administration tried him in court. you made the decision to try him in civilian court. the first thing he did was filed a motion to dismiss on grounds that he was not given a speedy trial. they would allow the defense to determine whether his attention or his delay was actually based on national security grounds. this information that the department turned over to him, any of that information is going to be scannd and broadcast in a nanosecond. of course it is.

you have handed our enemies a powerful tool. a very powerful information to use against our men and women in uniform. that is one of our main concerns. >> i have a couple of facts here. there is a statute that would prevent the dissemination of the information that you are talking about. lawyers have to be cleared. they have the have security clearances. there are all kinds of measures put in place. he is the last of the people charged. the other people charged with that crime were charged by the bush administration where? in civilian court. >> he is a four and national -- foreign national.

it is a fact that those things can and will be scanned. it can and will be provided by our enemies. >> that is speculation on your part that heads into another bothersome thing called the statute. >> i don't want to cut you off, sorry. it is one thing to interrupt the witness and another thing to interrupt me. you will have another round. i don't want to appear that we're cutting this off. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. attorney-general, and that he will commute to the committee. rather than go back over some of the territory that has already been open, let me see if we can resurrect some of the contents

of all this they have criticized china for locking people up, not having trials, secret charges, secret evidence. they said it is not appropriate in a civilized world. newt gingrich was before the congress, and asked him post 9/11, what is the rule of law? you hear my colleagues basically saying, look, put them in a place over at guantanamo, and that is in it. the question really becomes how does our nation that -- how should we be paid in the context of trying to promote the rule of law?

would it be impossible for the president of the united states -- given the activities over the last eight years. >> put back to my confirmation hearing, i think is profound. he said that we decide to do in dealing with these terrorists sends more about us that it does about them. we have a great addition, and great systems that have been shown to work. people look at the united states and our legal system, and it is held out as the gold standard. i have great faith in the abilities of our judges, the people that served as jurors, the people responsible for the protection to handle these

matters in a way that we always have. >> i do, too. it is that of a -- someone should have a trial in new york city. if someone had killed somebody philadelphians, we would want the community there to be able to survey them. >> if i could interrupt, there is a federal statute that says the trial has to be held in the place where the murders occurred and a capital case. >> if he could live long enough to get to trial, we would expect it. the idea that we can take 18 and 19-year-old kids, drop them in afghanistan, we are too cowardly to have a trial with all of the

protections that are afforded to whether it is military or police, unless they are supermen or something, i think it befits a great nation to not hesitate and equivocate our impulses to justice. we saw them prosecute ane x-cia -- an ex-cia employee that under prisoner suspected of terrorism. you come along and say you want to review these cases. you haven't charged anyone or put anyone on trial. this administration, as you point out, in the same case, trying the last perpetrator in civilian court.

the did not criticize the others that have been tried. it is all politics. it is unfortunate that we have american citizens that lost their lives, young men and women that are risking their lives, and in congress, we can rise above our own politics. it is unfortunate. it is unfortunate. we still have to persist. i will say to you going forward that this committee -- i know that we want to be as helpful as we can. you have the resources. we have a young presidency, and in that young presidency of george bush, we had an attack. thousands of americans died. the minority party united with the majority and we worked together. now we have a young presidency, we have a failed attack on

christmas day, and the minority party attacked the president and attacked this administration. it is a reversal of responsibility. i would hope that my colleagues would put their petty politics decide to be able to work in the best interests of our country. thank you. >> mr. honda. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome. before i start, i want to thank you for service to the country. as a third-generation japanese- american that went through internments, the country setting aside the constitution -- your

ability to fulfil the laws of this country. for that, i am very appreciative for reservists. as you know, it is one of our most important civic responsibilities. the senses -- census is underway now. they fear that the government agencies will have access to their personal responses and might use that information to take legal action against them. the 2010 census is the first post september 11 one. the confidentiality provision in light of the patriot act provisions that allow the government to seek information of those suspected of terrorist activity. we appreciate your recent

response to our letter. when you come from my understanding of the analysis that no data sharing or secret provisions superseded provisions that prohibit them from sharing any personally added to file information. >> i was going to say yes, but i check with my colleagues back here. that is correct. >> thank you. i think that when we tell our communities, especially the recent arrivals and our citizens awaiting, we just want them to feel confident that the knock on the door is there, and we do

the out -- and spend all the money and effort to fulfil the constitutional mandate of counting who is here. we want them to feel confident as i do that your information will be used only as a way to provide information so we can come up with all kinds of programs to benefit the people of this country. the increased resources for indian country law -- the administration is proposing language for funding with state and local law enforcement. the 7% tribal language is replacing traditional language that has been carried out that

specify particular funding for various countries and programs such as courts, facilities in india in use. -- indian use. they will continue to receive an adequate base level of funding for 2011? >> one of the things that we want to do is work with the people of the tribal lands to make sure that the money is spent inappropriate ways -- in appropriate ways. we have mechanisms to make sure that the money is spent in a way that is intended by congress, consistent with what the administration's goals are. i attended a conference in minnesota late last year to try

to develop -- to try to listen to the people on those lands. what are their needs? we try to identify those needs in the budget, come up with a certain amount of flexibility 0, and a certain amount of rigidity at the same time so that the needs that they identify that we see are met. i think that we have struck the right balance here. >> has there been any discussion during that time? the perception that based upon culture and history, tradition may be different if corp. were administered -- are there in the end -- in the endian courts thae

laws traditionally on their own lands? is there a difference in friction in that area? will you address those differences? >> we are trying to be sensitive to the culture of differences that exist, and at the same time in terms of the law enforcement interests that we see there, trying to support them in such a way that they are affected by twenty first century standards. again, being sensitive to those standards and ultimately being effective, if you look at the rates of the indian country and see what a young girl born there can expect in terms of sexual abuse and sexual violence, it is

really breathtaking. what we tried to do was come up with ways that art supported -- supportive of prevention efforts, and at the same time, being sensitive to the cultural differences that your right to point out. -- that you are right to point out. >> in that kind of case, in terms of the right that we have , in terms of the access to health and things like that, with the reverse be applicable if there is a lack of that? and there is an expectation that somehow we're partners through this treaty that we have. in the context of their sovereignty, the civil-rights

laws applied that from the perspective of our own? does that make sense? >> i think i understand what you're saying. i will have to check on that to see what the efik ability is -- efficability is. i want to make sure that this is accurate. the money that we give our to support the laws that they have, and that not all of our laws as i understand are applicable on tribal lands. i will have to check into that and get back to you with a more definitive answer. in the area of the executive office for immigration review, in citing the complexities of emigration cases, the completion

deadlines have disposed of the case despite their [unintelligible] dna manage their caseloads? and to reduce the heavy load, making sure that cases receive adequate attention. what actions have been taken to make sure that the immigration service's [unintelligible] >> one of the things we're doing is to try to hire judges to have more people to hear these cases. we're looking at $11 million that would include 31 attorneys and 21 immigration judge deems

-- teams. we want to have more people doing this work, and at the same time, we want to increase the training that we give to these people. we have made substantial progress when it comes to what our immigration judges are doing. i had a meeting just yesterday or the day before yesterday with a group of of judges that review these cases. they thought that over the last couple of years, the product coming out of immigration judges are trial judges. >> how much time do i have? >> go ahead and ask one more question. >> thank you.

i have read that there has been some pretty horrific stories of her rat -- assassinations and the murders, i believe,juarez, -- in the juarez, murders of our staff from the american consulate office. in the past meetings, the atf has reported that the u.s. is overwhelmingly the source for these gun traffickers and their acts. we allotted $21.90 million for funding to disrupt the illegal gun trafficking, especially

along the southwest border. the believe that this recovery act funding [unintelligible] do believe it is sufficient to take on the trafficking? and let me give you another question on top of that. the issue of gun shows. does that continue to be the main source of arms that show up on the other side of the border? >> i think we have to use all the tools that we can to stop the flow of guns from the united states and mexico. gun runner has been a successful program. we have used programs with our mexican counterparts, and they have been a very the label

effort to fight these cartels. the atf has appropriately gone to gun shows where guns are being sold improperly and has been effective in that regard as well. the concern is that we really have to understand that there is, indeed, a problem. way too many of them come from the united states. i think that we have to do all that we can to increase our efforts to stop the flow of guns from the united states to mexico. there are things that we need to do in mexico. we need to have more of our people there working with their mexican counterparts, both from

atf, dea, and other agencies as well. we also have to be honest with ourselves that we are allowing some purchases and other illegal things. they ultimately go [unintelligible] >> the intelligence -- should there have been intelligence regarding these drug cartels that wanted leadership on the other side? should there have been intelligence that should have been shared with our folks that were in danger or are in danger? was it passed on? is this another area that we need to create a better

intelligence process that we can defend or protect members of our organizations and the government on the other side? >> we have to make sure that we have a good information flow between the united states and mexico. one of the things that we have to assure ourselves are appropriate to push mexico to come up with what we call -- that we can trust them and share information with them. i will say this. there is an investigation ongoing by the fbi and the dea on the shootings that occurred over the last few days as a result of a variety of means that we have. we are developing a better understanding of what exactly happened there. i would not place, at least at this point, i would not have any concern that information was not shared with us as a cause of

what happened there. the dea and the fbi are doing a good job in the relatively short of time. we're starting to get a picture of what happened. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. attorney general, there has been a discussion and they came in some parts of the hearing that have raised questions about the balance between security and the guaranteeing of rights under the constitution in various situations. i would simply note that if this

is about rights, it is also about responsibilities. both are constitutionally based. to the extent that the authority has the power to implement policy in the country pursuant to constitutional principles p-- we are a better nation to the extent that we don't do that as well as we ould, -- could, owere tried to do it as well as we should. we can step back and regroup, addressed the shortcomings. i commend the administration for doing that in a way that is very sensitive to the national

security concerns that were paramount in the last administration. that is to your credit. and also to your credit, and stepping back, -- in stepping back, you have embraced process in order to ensure that the fulfillment of our responsibilities to constitutional principles are assured. i think you certainly have done that with the detainee's at guantanamo. i think that is a defining distinction between the way these detainees were initially handled, and the way that this administration has handled them has to do with process.

and we are really being sensitive. it is a statement ought to be insensitive to the -- not to be insensitive to the national security concern. it is to your credit that in pursuing the same national security goals, you did it with a sensitivity, a greater sensitivity to those rights that our constitutionally -- that are constitutionally based. and the nation recognized that you have responsibilities, you are the power, and you're exercising those responsibilities to achieve national security purposes and at the same time being sensitive to the principles that the

finance as a nation. -- define us as a nation. there were a lot of issues raised that i like to address quickly. the case, with erspect -- respect to that case, can you elaborate on the statutory and other things that will guide you with regard to what information and how much information is shared and how that information will be safeguarded in the course of that proceeding? >> if the prosecutors in that case make the determination in consultation with the intelligence community, the information should not be shared and should not be out of the confines of the court room. there are mechanisms in place,

particularly the cipa statute that allow for that to occur. it is something that is fairly routine in cases where a motion is made, the judge looks at the motion, there are lawyers from the other side that have gone to the security clearance process, and the information is contained within the court room. we have judges in new york and other places where these cases have been tried and are more familiar with. . .

to clarify what your point was, which i think it is important for you characterize your point rather than for your point to be characterized, so i would like to give you an opportunity to elaborate on the point you were making. >> i frequently hear the notion that these terrorists are

getting writes the average american would not get. i think that runs headlong into the fact that to the extent that we decide to bring terrorists charged with criminal acts into the criminal justice system, they are not treated as average americans. they are treated as murderers. they are treated in the way their crimes would have him be treated. i used the charles manson example because i am speaking of a mass murderer, thinking with regard to some of the people who might be brought into the articles also would be mass murderers, so they would get -- i do not think that word unnecessarily conveys what i am trying to save. they would be treated in the

same way. that does not mean they are going to be coddled. that does not mean they are going to be treated with kids gloves. they would be imprisoned before trial. they would be in holding cells. if you look at the detention facility in new york, these cells are extremely small. they are drafty. they are not pleasant. it is not for these people who are brought in to the article 3 system and are charged with the serious offenses. it is not all of a pleasant experience. -- not at all of pleasant experience. that is what i was trying to convey. the comparison is not between an average american and these terrorists. the comparison is between those people who have committed the most heinous acts and are

charged in article 3. that is the comparison i think is more apt. what i have consistently said is that not everybody we determine should be tried will be brought into article 3 court. some will be tried in military commissions. i have already made that decision. >> i know that was extrapolated to the mastermind or policy head of one of the most heinous crimes committed on the domestic shores of the country, and i thought it would be useful for you to note that was not your comparison or your analogy and that the facts that would devolve would be totally around

circumstance. the law is very good at deciding on a case by case basis and deciding how constitutional principles are applied, which are constitutional principles, and the measure of -- one measure of the country is to the extent to which it honors those principles which we affirm. mr. wolf? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to deal with a couple of issues on the other side. one, to say that guantanamo is a recruitment tool may be in the eyes of some people, but before that time, there was the embassies bombing and tanzania. before that, there was the embassy bombing in kenya. there was the 1993 attack from

the world trade center, and there was 9-11. i sing to say it is a tremendous recruitment tool is like saying -- i think to say it is a tremendous recruitment tool is like saying, if we shut it down, they are going to get into another occupation. they are people who want to kill us, so i think it is overstated to say it is the recruitment tool, and we will just shut it down. >> i would not say it is only a recruitment tool, but i would say when you can have john mccain, president bush -- >> there has been such an emphasis that is major. >> it is certainly our recruiting tool. i would not say it is a major recruiting tool, but it is a tool we can take out of the hands of those who are trying to recruit people to fight us. if you looked at those people

who say, let's close guantanamo, senator mccain, president bush, holland hall said it should be closed. >> -- collin powell all said it should be close. >> the gentleman was interviewed for 30 minutes. i watched the hearing. the gentleman said he was never consulted. i assume you made the decision. secretary of paul lozano said she was not informed -- secretariat napolitano said she was not informed. i do not think you have the first team on board in detroit at that time. that is the second thing i want to clear up. >> with regards to that, the

people made the determination as to whether or not to member bridget to mirandize abdulmuttulab -- as to whether to mirandaze abdulmuttulab. one was an iran-iraq expert. one was an explosives expert. good people trained, and as we looked at this question about how we codify this, how we arrange this, the one thing i think we should all try to agree on is we do not handcuff the people trained at these kinds of things, these fbi agents, so when they are there and trying to make these on the scene determinations, they do not have to worry about what is washington going to sink. >> that gets back to my original. the team was not originally involved.

thirdly, it was christmas day, and it is nothing wrong with people wanting to be off on christmas day. if you looked at the interview on 60 minutes, the fbi agent -- his identification and understanding of the head of saddam, he understood culture. it probably would have been a good idea to bring the top person who understood nigerian culture. maybe they were on vacation, and that is not bad. i am not criticizing that. it was christmas day, and you have some very good people in the justice department who, had they been there -- and perhaps somebody in fbi could have been a little bit different. >> i disagree. i think the operation on the 25th was done really well. i think it was done even better post-25th, but i think there are

things we can learn. we need to make sure we do it better every time. >> thirdly, on bin laden, he dismissed it. you brushed aside -- brushed it aside. you may very well catch him, and he may very well be alive. we do not know. we do not know a lot of things. sometimes we do not know what we do not know, but if you do catch him, and i think the concern is you may very well be setting a precedent -- beheading daniel pearl, killing 3000 people. the president you are sitting there that should you capture osama bin laden alive, you may very well be setting a precedent, so my question is if you catch osama bin laden alive,

which would go to an article 3 court or a military court? >> i am not trying to dodge this. the possibility of catching him alive is infinitesimal. he will be killed by us, or he will be killed by his own people so he is not captured by us. we know that. >> that was not a trick question. sincerely, what if we do catch him alive? that is the question. >> maybe i was being a little flip about reading miranda rights, but i think that is what we are going to be dealing with. he is not going to be alive. >> the question is, what if he is alive? i think the gentleman raised a legitimate case. from my perspective, our government is setting a precedent with the civilian

courts in new york city, and that is a real danger. two other questions i want to ask. but the intelligence reform prevention act of 2004 and expanded jurisdiction. we had hearings when i was the chairman of this committee. since the change, how many human rights violators have been successfully prosecuted or remove from the country? i saw an interview from somalia. we are finding all these bad people are showing up in the country. people have been in five in genocide in rwanda where 6000 people have been killed. we are finding charles taylor's son came in. can you commit that you are aggressively looking? can you have somebody come by and give me the real information of all these people

who have been involved in genocide and crimes against humanity that are now living in the united states, that you are aggressively going after them to a police before them? >> i can arrange a briefing so i cannot share the exact numbers. one thing -- we're asking the they merge with counterparts, because we think if we put those two groups together in our criminal division, we can be more effective at getting to the people you mentioned. >> i will offer the motion. if your people can come up and give me the language, i will see if i can get that passed. i will also introduce the bill.

i think we have an obligation to those people who have been persecuted to have these people they then see living in the united states to be prosecuted and the porters. >> i agree, and to the extent we can work -- to be prosecuted and deported. >> i agree, and to the extent we can work with that, we will. >> i want to go back to prisons. this is an issue i care a deeply -- i care deeply about. i thought you were reading. i did not want to interrupt. >> i am sorry. go ahead. >> the present rate. miles was talking to somebody involved in the prison rate and connected to the justice department.

senator kennedy it -- we wanted this thing passed. i would ask you on record if you promise me you would read them -- some of the cases of these people. some of them are very young. we sent a letter back in july. you are duplicating everything, and just because the prisoner may not like it, the longer you delay, the more people are going to be raped. now you are telling me this will not be in place until 2011 and maybe 2012. that is unacceptable, and i do not know why you did it. this was looked at carefully, and i think to reduce the funding for it, too, send me a

message that the justice department does not commit. i want to commit. knowing that each day you do not do it, someone in some prison, maybe a state prison, maybe a jail, maybe a federal prison, is going to be raped. we want to move this thing. we want to get it out and running. 2011 -- a year-and-a-half to two years, you're telling me you're going to do away with this, contract out and do something to make this happen fast. >> in terms of funding, that is what i was looking at here. we have total funding of over $16 million available in 2010. $5 million in 2011 plus our current fund is really sufficient to finish the survey process and to provide implementation to help our state and local partners, so we think

we are capable of doing the job he would have done and the job by one to have done. -- the job i want to have done. we want to affect substantive change so that the horrors too often visited upon people in our prisons -- that horror is a limited -- eliminated. i look forward to working on new -- with that. i think this is something that needs to be done and not tomorrow, but yesterday, and to the extent we are not being as efficient, not being as aggressive as we need to be, it is good for you to bring that to my attention, but i can tell you i am sincere in my desire to make sure we get this done as quickly as we can. i think we have sufficient funds

to do it. i think the process we have laid out will make sure the changes we implement will be ones that will have a substantive impact and will not simply be things you see on paper that do not affect the lives of people in prison. that is my goal. >> i think it is fair to say most members of the commission do not agree with you. with that, i yield back. >> thank you. i want to quickly address a couple comments made about guantanamo in addition to -- about guantanamo. in addition to president bush for advocating closure of guantanamo, the assessment of military commanders is that closing guantanamo would be a national security imperative in the war against al qaeda

according to the assistant. they have all stated closing guantanamo will help our troops by eliminating a recruiting tool. my colleague made the argument that because many of us believe given a recruiting tool, we are somehow arguing if you close guantanamo it will end the war on terrorism. no one has made that claim, but i have yet to hear advocates of keeping guantanamo open acknowledge any merit to the propaganda tool id has -- it has served for al qaeda and the downside of keeping it open. i also, in terms of the criticism regarding the rest and advisement of abdulmuttulab, i think that argument would have a

lot more policy weighed and a lot less political overtone if these same folks attacking the administration now have leveled any criticism of ashcroft won the issue bomber was arrested, which was also almost christmas day region when the shoe bomber was arrested, which was also around christmas day. he was a vice of his miranda rights within the first five minutes -- advises of his miranda rights within the first five minutes and advise four times within 48 hours, and i do not remember hearing criticism of the bush justice department at that time, so i think we ought to try to keep the politics out of this and not be selective in our criticism. let me turn to another subject, and that was one raised by my colleague, mr. honda, and that is the spiralling of violence in mexico.

i had a chance to sit down with your counterpart, the mexican attorney general, two months ago, who talked about the mutually destructive trade between our countries with narcotics flowing north and weapons flowing south, and in particular, the prevalence of american weapons being imported into mexico or acquired at gun shows or through whatever mechanism, and i want to ask you how we can do more to stem the flow of weapons into mexico. we're devastated to seize -- see the loss of our consular official and his wife. we lost a council member from california to the violence, and of course thousands of mexican citizens are dying every year in what looks increasingly like columbia used to look, so i

would be interested to know if you think there are any legal changes that are necessary to crack down on this higher volume of weapon traffic into mexico. you are acquired region required to expose of someone by five or more -- you are required to expose of someone by five or more handguns a month, but if they buy five or more of assault weapons, you're not required to expose it. we do not have those kinds of leaves as we saw in the excalibur case. some of the -- some of the leads as we saw in the caliber case. some of the efforts to crack down are problematic, and one issue, too, may be do we have the resources among the u.s. attorney's office to go after the purchasers in a way that will let us find it shane, much as sometimes you have to go after the drug runners to go

after cartel leaders, so if you could share your thoughts about how we could contribute to stopping the flow of weapons into mexico. >> one thing we need to do is make sure we have the ability from our mexican counterparts to look at the serial numbers of guns that are found in mexico so we can trace them and find where they are being sold. this tells us a relatively small number of gun stores supplied disproportionate number of guns used in violent crimes, both in the united states and certainly in mexico, and then to focus our attention using our atf state and local counterparts to focus on those places where there is evidence, where there is a predicate to believe they are engaged in the sale of weapons

that end up in mexico, through purchases, through illegal sales, perhaps two people -- whatever it is, but to follow the evidence back to those places that are the source of these guns, and i think one way in which we can do that is by having a good interaction with their mexican counterparts end just by looking at the weapons seized. i have seen these. we have warehouses of these things, and they need to be preserved at least long enough for american law enforcement to get there and to obtain serial numbers and try to trace those serial numbers back. >> do we need to look at some of the sentencing provisions as well? i was informed at a meeting with some of your colleagues about a recent case where someone was convicted of gun-running into

mexico. i think a thousand weapons were involved, and the sentence was 30 some odd months. that seems like an awfully light sentence for someone illegally exporting into mexico 1000 weapons. we may see several killings as a result of those guns being illegally trafficking in two countries. do we need to look into whether we have sufficient sentencing? >> i am not familiar with that case, but i think that is a legitimate question we should ask and maybe look at not only that case for the larger number of cases to see who is it that is getting convicted of gun- running to mexico and what kinds of sentences are they getting? if they seem to be low, is it because the statutes, the penalties we have are too low, or is there something else going on? i think that is something that

is a very legitimate inquiry we should engage in. we have to have a deterrent effect. we cannot make this something people do without the thought that if caught they are not going to face a very substantial penalty, given the impact it has on mexico but also the impact it has on the united states. it makes the cartel's stronger in mexico and gives the greater capacity to ship drugs to our country, and the violence we see along our border is only fueled by these same weapons. >> thank you mr. chairman, and i yield back. mr. congressman. >> memoranda cases designed to preserve the invisibility in a court proceeding. you believe iran is -- do you believe miranda is essential in

criminal court proceedings against, for example, these enemy combatants brought to trial and article 3/4? >> it depends on -- article 3 court said, pressing defense on the situation. in the initial interrogate -- article 3 course? >> that is dependent on the situation. there are times when law enforcement can gain intelligence -- khatami whole variety of things. the supreme court said -- all whole variety of things. the supreme court said the miranda warning regime was of constitutional dimension. >> a 7-2 opinion or something like that. >> you mentioned a moment ago the people on the scene made the decision to provide memoranda

warnings to the christmas bomber. i want to confirm that. who did authorize the miranda warnings to be given to the christmas bomber? >> that was given by people on the scene, but i think that decision was correct. >> the purpose of the question in -- if the person of the questioning of an individual is to gather intelligence, are they entitled to miranda warnings? >> it depends. a byproduct of the questioning of justifiably done of their -- under the public safety exception was the acquisition of intelligence information while we also try to determine whether there were other people in other planes or other people in the same plane. i have heard a lot about people saying he was only question for 50 minutes. that is a fairly long time, certainly not as long as what

happened subsequent to that, but if you look at the report of the interview that was gotten from him, there was a substantial amount of information received from him that proved to be actionable, that proves to be timely, and that continues to be in some ways the basis for a lot of the cooperation he has shared with us. >> since you made the decision to try ksm in the u.s. escort, wouldn't all of his incriminating statements be inadmissible -- in a u.s. court, with all his incriminating statements be inadmissible because he was not given his miranda warnings? this is something i cannot get into too much. there are a variety of statements that are available

for our use in that trial -- some of which have numerous other issues of all. >> when he raises the objection, as he will, when he is brought before a federal judge -- with his lawyers raised the objection he was not given a miranda warning, what will be the position of the department of justice? >> in the article free trial we would present, there would not be a basis for underrun the challenge. >> mr. attorney general, this is one piece of why it really is a severe concern to the people i represent, that the approach is this is a law enforcement action, that this war on terror

is fundamentally law enforcement action like the war on crime, ntt's not. we are at war, and texans understand when you are at war, your goal is to hunt down the enemy and kill them or capture them. this war requires that the president of united states, his commander in chief, be given full discretionary authority to use whatever tools are at his disposal, as the supreme court has ruled repeatedly, specifically referring to the rumsfeld case, the supreme court said in reversing the second circuit court decision, that a citizen of the united states can be "part of or supporting forces hostile to the united states or coalition partners and engaged in an armed conflict against the united states, and a u.s.

citizen if relief would pose a threat -- if released would pose a threat as part of the ongoing conflict, and that u.s. citizen can be held in detention through the tribunal system, because we are at war, and that is my concern, and it is a very deep- seated and ernest profound disagreement with the approach of the and ministration that this is not law enforcement. we are at war, and as you correctly said, they said the president that when osama bin laden is captured, you did not answer the question directly, but it is a legitimate one. if osama bin laden is captured alive, because his role is equivalent, would use try him in the civilian court?

>> i do not expect osama bin laden will face justice in a military commission. >> odds are, but if he is captured alive, where will he be tried? >> that is speculation. you ask me about something that on the basis of all the intelligence i have had the chance to review, the possibility simply does not exist. >> it is profoundly concerning to me, to the people of texas. the president you are setting, because of the president in granting constitutional rights to energy soldiers in time of war, that your approach to the

war on terror is as though it is a war on crime and fighting gays and murderers, and it is not. we are at war. it is completely different. >> i have said i know we are at war, and let me make this clear. if you were to take away from the justice department, from this administration and subsequent administration the ability to use article three courts, you would weaken our ability to fight successfully these wards. it is as simple as that. this tool we are talking about is only one tool we have in our arsenal, and to take the tool away and say these are people who cannot be tried would weaken our ability to ultimately be successful.

i looked at before you examine the question of people tried in court. this woman caught in afghanistan, indicted in new york by the bush administration. an iraqi-born of citizen tried for planting roadside bombs. minor examples -- nevertheless examples of people who've committed half overseas and tried here in american courts, but the thing i want you to focus on -- the gallani case is consistent. if you take away this article 3 tool -- and its novel only thing we use. if you take it away, you -- it

is not only thing we use. you have to look at who we have incapacitated, who we have gotten intelligence from, who will fill the sentencing -- who we will be sentencing. >> the approach of the a administration and department is that it is a war on crime, and it is not. the two cases you mention, i want to make sure, because this is the first time you have identified them. tell me again the name of these cases. >> just do not ask me to spell them. >> sadiki. such is the woman just convicted in new york. she was caught in afghanistan, shot of military soldiers, indicted by the bush administration. >> she is a foreign national? >> foreign national. an iraqi-born us citizen who tried indices -- tried in d.c.

four roadside bombs. >> both were put in court by the bush administration. i will run those five. those are ones none of us have been aware of, because in granting constitutional rights to these folks and giving them the opportunity to file a motion to be released for the charges dismissed because of failure to provide a speedy trial, it gives an opportunity to our enemies not only to have these people released and freed, the chain of evidence cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they would not have in military tribunals. that is a huge concern. >> you raise good points there. to the extent that looking at an individual case that have those kinds of problems, and if i were convinced those problems existed and could not be tried in an

article 3 court, i would have the option of trying to try that in the military commission. that is why it is done on a case by case basis. what will be best for this case? [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> coming up on c-span, the house debate on health care. then treasury secretary tim geithner discusses next year's economic outlook. later, a senate confirmation hearing for the president's nominees to the ambassador of syria. tomorrow morning on "washington journal," we preview the day's action on health-care legislation. then a look at the proposal for national high-speed internet access with art brodsky and adam

thierer. also, " the washington journal offer will talk about the military tribunal. -- a writer from " the washington journal" will talk about the military tribunals. >> fine presidential fifes at c- span's newly updated book, "who is buried in grant's tomb?" >> it is a mini biography of each president, and you can tell a lot about people at the end of their lives. >> a resource guide to every presidential graveside, a story of their final moments, and insights into their lives. now available at your favorite bookseller, or get a 25%

discount at the publisher's web site. white house member spoke about health care today in a series of one minute species. here is part of that debate, beginning with john maynard -- boehner. this is just under an hour. >> american people are appalled by what they have seen in this health care debate, but the worst is ahead. the american people do not want it, and they are screaming, stop, yet congress continues to proceed. people do. but what's this bill do? puts the american people out of work. they want lower health care costs, how about a health care bill that's going to raise the cost of premiums? they want less government. yet this bill's going to create a giant bureaucracy here in washington. they want to protect life. yet the bill is going to force taxpayers to fund elective

abortions. if that weren't enough, the majority plans to force the toxic senate bill through the house under some controversial trick. there is no way to hide from this vote. it will be the biggest vote that most members ever cast. you can run but you can't hide. let's defeat this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? >> request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. schauer: madam speaker, health care is an issue of basic economics to middle class families, seniors, and businesses. during the health care debate my constituents have asked me to listen. i'm listening. the story i heard last week is from a college in my area. it employs 300 people. as in the case with many employers, the lion's share of their costs come from employee costs. 70% in this college's case. and their health insurance premiums this year went up 17%.

17%. what does that mean? it means job cuts or tuition increases or both. both disastrous for middle class families in our economy. 17% premium increases. the nation's five largest private health insurance companies' profits went up $12 billion last year while they dropped 2.7 million people from coverage. our current health care system may work for the health insurance industry, but it's broken for middle class families and is hurting our economy. it must be fixed now. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. cantor: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, republicans have come to the floor today because we care about americans' health care. we just don't care for this bill. but still the majority seems committed to trying to muscle through a trillion dollar overhaul that will change health care for every man,

woman, and child. americans have made it very clear, they don't like this bill. they don't want the government and the decisionmaking of their health care. they want to lower costs, and they don't want their government tax dollars going to fund abortion services. so why can't we start over, madam speaker? we ask again. there's been a year and a half nearly of debate over this and still more questions than answers. that's why we are hearing reports that the majority will try and ram this through without a direct vote on the senate bill. madam speaker, we should take an up or down vote on the senate bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> i rise today to honor the sacrifice of american men and women serving our country overseas and to urge my colleagues to support legislation i introduced to give them a much deserved pay increase for facing dangerous

situations. late last year i traveled to afghanistan and was privileged to meet members of our armed forces serving our country in a difficult and dangerous environment. two of those soldiers -- i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting our troops and their families. thank you, madam speaker, and i yield back. >> the gentle man yields that. what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise democrats -- rise?

without objection, so ordered. >> the democrat health care bill brock threw to congress this week is nothing more than the government takeover of health care, and the american people know it. i know the of ministers and does not like us to use the phrase, but,. -- i know the administration does not like us to use the phrase, but come on. this will create a massive bureaucratic exchange. you brought that in a trillion dollars worth of spending. that is a government takeover of health care. what is truly remarkable is not only the american people have rejected this plan, but democrats are so desperate to passive there willing to trample on the traditional rules of the house and senate and the constitution to get it done. the constitution provides a bill becomes law if it is passes -- if it passes the house and the senate. the democrats do not have the

votes to pass the senate bill, so they have decided they are going to pass the bill without a vote. that would be news to the founders of this country and a betrayal of the commitment of every member of this congress to the american people. going to try and pass the bill without a vote. well, that will be news to the founders of this country and a detrail of the commitment of every member of this congress to the american people. i urge the speaker, bring it to the floor. if not -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. pence: start over for the american people. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. woolsey: madam speaker, at least 46 million americans are now uninsured. 7.1 million in california are uninsured and by the end of the day 14,000 more americans will lose their coverage, more than 2,000 of them in california. without health care reform, the average family premium in california will rise from

13,280 dollars to $22,670 by the year 2019. that's why we must pass a health care reform bill that brings down cost and increases competition. the senate bill with the corrections, including better subsidies and insurance market rample will be the beginning of this. we must pass health care reform so that our nation's families have access to affordable, quality health insurance. i yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri rise? >> to address the house for one minute and ask permission to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. blunt: thank you, madam speaker. "the washington post" today, madam speaker, on the front page said pelosi may try to pass a health bill without a vote. may try to pass the health bill without a vote. i didn't even think that was possible, but apparently "the washington post" and the speaker of the house thinks it's possible. it's no wonder, madam speaker,

that the country is outraged, not by the bill but by the process. it's like the speaker's statement that said we had to pass a bill so we'd know what's in it. madam speaker, this bill does not reduce cost. it cuts medicare and increases taxes for 10 years and spends the money in six years. madam speaker, this bill throws the health care system up in the air and just hopes that the greatest health care system in the world is still there when it lands a few years from now. madam speaker, i hope we have a vote on this bill, a debate on this bill and we do not pass this bill with a vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from arizona rise? >> i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. kirkpatrick: madam speaker, on saturday, three people connected to the u.s. consulate in juarez was brutally murdered by drug

cartels in front of their young children. what more must happen to focus our attention on the serious threat along 2,000 miles of our southern border? for the safety of americans living in border states and traveling or working in mexico, we must take this danger seriously and crack down on the cartels. u.s. citizens are at increasingly at risk of being victims of this violence, but the administration's budget would cut resources intended to crack down on cartels and to secure our borders. i call on the white house to provide necessary support for law enforcement at all levels. to track down their criminals and their networks. this is a fight we cannot lose. it is too close to home. my thoughts and prayers are with the families of those who lost their lives in these attacks and i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from washington rise? lum -- mrs. lummis: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mrs. lummis: america needs health care reform but america knows this is not the right approach. this is the wrong policy and it is the wrong process, yet the majority is willing to do everything possible to pass this bill. even over the objections of the american people. just recently cnn had a poll that showed 73% of the americans across the country would like to scrap the bill or start all over. yet now we're being told the democrat leadership may deem the bill passed without members of congress even voting on it. that's un-american. it ignores the democratic process. madam speaker, we need an up or down vote. if congress passes this bill without even a vote on it, the american people will be outraged and rightfully so. there's a better way. let's go to work on it and i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from maryland rise? ms. edwards: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. edwards: madam speaker, just when we thought we'd heard enough, seen enough and paid enough, the big insurance companies are at it again. seniors are paying more for prescriptions, home values plummet, savings in retirement accounts disappear and millions lose homes, jobs and nair health care. but that didn't stop the big health insurance companies from announcing -- announcing premium increases of nearly 40%. these companies have some impotence. they have to be stopped. deny, deny, deny. they deny coverage, they deny claims and they deny care. and last week the c.e.o.'s came to washington. it's not something we have to dodge the lobbyists in washington, but they stayed at the ritz on your premium dollars and now they want to deny the american of quality, affordable and accessible health care. they know we are on the homestretch and they'll stop at

nothing to keep us from clamping down on their practices, but we're going to stop them. let's deny them and vote them off the island. i'm ready to do it. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from -- the gentleman rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> words that strike every american is i'm from the federal government and i'm here to help you. well, we have a bill here that people can't read, they are not given the opportunity to understand, we have smoke screams every brand back room deals being made everywhere all from the federal government that's being here to help you. we are going to take over your health care, take over about 1/6 of the economy and we are from the federal government and we're here to help you. by the way, we're even going to pass this through the house of representatives without a vote so you don't have to worry if your representative stands up for your right or not. this is the kind of democracy we want? this is a bad bill. give us a straight vote. be straight with the american

people and let's let the american people know that man says we're here to help you is not to get in your back pocket. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend . the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. we have been talking about health care for nearly over a century. the american people voted for and demanded reform. they deserve our support. health insurance reform is about cost. these reforms slow the growth of health care spending and make health insurance more affordable for everyone while reducing our deficit. health insurance reform is about coverage. these reforms will cover nearly all americans, including those with pre-existing conditions and will not drop you if you get sick. health insurance reform is about competition. it repeals antitrust exemptions for insurance companies and brings them into a regulated

marketplace to bring down prices for families and small businesses. health insurance reform is about care. these reforms eliminate co-pays for yearly checkups and screenings and ensure that our seniors have access to prescription drugs that they can actually afford. health insurance reform helps where it belongs, not with insurance companies, not with government. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? >> thank you, madam speaker. to address the house for one minute and top revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman is recognized. mr. walden: i support reforming the health care system. in fact, i offered up legislation to do that and supported other bills. but the way this this process is being mismanaged and misrun today is not the way to do health care reform. there isn't the transparency that the american people deserve. and is now being denied by those in charge. we're reading in the press that

the senate bill with all of its barncals on it may pass this house without having a standup yes or no vote. that is outrageous. what does that bill do? it whacks medicare $2,500 billion, 38,000 seniors $it whacks medicare $500 billion. 38,000 seniors are hit. we should scrap the bill and start over on a bipartisan basis. i have two bills adopted unanimously in the energy and commerce committee both were stripped out somewhere between the committee and the house floor. and the democrats wouldn't even let me offer those amendments on the house floor again. stop this. let's do it right. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from philadelphia rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. altmire: madam speaker, i continue to hear my friends on

the other side of the aisle refer to the stimulus bill as a failed policy. apparently in the believe that if you say it over and over again it will be true. but it's not true. not by a long shot. last year at this time the stock market was at 6500 and today it's at 10,600. one year ago during the first quarter of 2009, g.d.p. came in at a staggering 6% decline, but in the last quarter of 2009 it rose almost 6%. and monthly job losses while not where we want them to be are literally 20 times better than they were a year ago today. some may say this would have happened anyway and that the stimulus had nothing to do with it, but i would ask my colleagues, madam speaker, to consider that would be quite a coincidence, don't you think, for all those economic indicators to begin such a dramatic turnaround at precisely the time the stimulus passed. quite a coincidence indeed.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. dreier: to address the house for one minute and trox. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. dreier: it was interesting, when i woke up this morning i heard this is actually -- this week has been dubbed sunshine week. meaning that there needs to be greater openness and transparency. we all agree that we need to do everything that we can, as my democratic colleagues have said, to increase competition and bring the cost of health insurance down. we all agree that that needs to be done. but, madam speaker, this measure will not accomplish that at all. we have commonsense solutions that i believe we can utilize and implement in a bipartisan way. so here we are in the midst of sunshine week and as my colleagues have been saying, what is it that's happening? we're seeing every effort made to try and avoid the kind of transparency, disclosure and accountability that were promised in that document, "a new direction for america,"

that then minority leader pelosi put forward. madam speaker, i'm convinced, i'm convinced that we can do better, but we need to make sure that as we proceed with this process we have the kind of openness that the american people insist. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. butterfield: madam speaker, every process must end. after dozens of hearings on health care, we have all of the information that we need to create strong legislation, to provide much-needed health insurance reform. the american people cannot wait. it's time to vote. rising health care costs are crushing families and businesses, forcing small business owners to choose between health care and jobs. this isn't about politics or poll numbers. in is about making good on the promise of providing every american access to

high-quality, affordable health care. this is about having the courage to do what is right. by voting for health insurance reform now, we are supporting the millions of americans who quietly struggled every day with the system that works better for the health insurance companies than it does for them. madam speaker, i urge my colleagues, democrat and republican, to join us in helping the american people by votings for -- voting for health insurance reform now. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? >> thank you, madam speaker. to address the house. >> madam speaker, the united states is the largest economy in the world. we are four times bigger than our next com we are bigger than our four next competitors, and we got there from personal freedom and individual choice. we did not get there by

government management. now countries in europe -- we have heard a lot about that. they have government-run health care, but that is not america. we are distinct. we place our faith in the individual. we compete, but we do not compete with the government. the federal government should not be given the power to make health care choices for you or your family or to force you as a taxpayer to pay for an abortion when it violates your value. let's listen to the majority of americans. let's start over. let's have an american plan. let's work on solutions consistent with our traditions of choice, of freedom, and puts our faith in individuals, not the government. >> for what purpose of the venerable -- the gentlewoman from california rides?

the gentle lady is recognized. >> i rise in strong support of finally passing health reform. hill is the product of countless hearings, hundreds of amendments and a full year of public debate. . ut reform health care costs for american families will rise by as much as 79% in the next 10 years. that is unsustainable for taxpayers, for small businesses, for families. the bill we will pass this week will take the necessary steps to rein in these costs. it creates incentives to reduce preventable hospital readmission, it limits possible overpayment to medicare plans and increases our capability to fight fraud, waste and abuse. passing health reform means lower costs for patients, lower costs for patients, igher quality care and at long last accountability for insurance companies. i urge all of my colleagues,

democrats and republicans, let's move our nation forward by passing health reform today. this week. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. smith: the american people are speaking and the republicans are listening. strong arm tactics and legislative gimmicks should not be used to jam through a bill that will impact the life of every single american. we need to focus on true reform which lowers health care costs, limits unnecessary lawsuits and expands access by allowing purchasing across the state lines. for health insurance. not simply takeover which we already know will not control costs. that's the type of reform

americans want, not this one-size-fits-all approach putting bureaucrats between doctors and their patients. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized, without objection. mr. inslee: i have a remarkable american in my office this morning, gary hall, who won gife golds, three silvers and two bronzes in three olympic games in free-style swimming. a remarkable person. and he told me a story about having insurance for 12 years while in the olympics but when he lost the olympics he couldn't get insurance. you know why? his dwibets diabetes. here's a guy that won gold, silver and bronze medals and couldn't get insurance in america because of diabetes. and the reason he couldn't get insurance in america is because we couldn't get health care reform bill passed. we will put green lights on that board to pass health care reform so that gary hall can get insurance and even if you

haven't won a gold medal you can get insurance if you have diabetes. and these people who are smoking something i don't know what who doesn't think we are going to vote on this, i am going to take a picture on the booed to show you the votes because the green lights will mean that people with diabetes will get insurance and the red lights will be you can't get insurance even if you won a gold medal. that's not right. it will change. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from kansas rise? jenkjenk i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute -- ms. jenkins: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jenkins: there is a problem with the senate government takeover of health care, problems with the cornhusker kickback, problems with the massive job killing taxes. problems with federally funding of abortion. but the latest problem is that the majority doesn't have the votes to pass it. rather than finally listening to the american people's rejection of this misguided bill, the majority is planning

to abuse the legislative process to pass their government takeover without a single up or down vote. as a mom, i'd never allow my kids to deem their rooms clean, so it's disgraceful that the majority plans to deem their $2.5 trillion government takeover of health care as passed without a vote as provided for in the constitution. i urge my colleagues to do the truly courageous thing and demand a clean vote. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> perm and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman is recognized. mr. lewis: madam speaker, the time is always right to do what is right. and that time is now. we must pass health care. there are those who have told us to wait.

they have told us to be patient. we cannot wait. we cannot be patient. the american people need health care and they need it now. we stand with the american people or will we stand with the big insurance companies? we have a moral obligation to make health care a right and not a privilege. we cannot wait a moment longer. we must pass health care and we must pass it now. i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> madam speaker, today "the washington post" bore a headline that should be of grave concern to all americans, quote, house may try to pass senate health care bill without voting on it, close quote. first article said, after laying the groundwork for a decisive vote this week on the senate's health care bill,

house speaker nancy pelosi suggested monday that she might attempt to pass the measure without having members vote on it. despite deep reservations of a majority of americans, congressional leaders plan to ram through their 2,700-page, nearly $1 trillion proposal by using a parliamentary maneuver that is both politically treacherous and likely unconstitutional. article 1, section 7 of the constitution clearly states that a bill must pass both the house and senate to become law. i call on leaders of congress to adhere to our constitution's requirement of democratic accountability and allow a straight up or down vote on the majority party's health care proposal that is opposed by the american people. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman is recognized.

mr. mcdermott: madam speaker, a great if i loss for george santianos, those who fail to learn from hisrytry -- history are doomed to repeat it. the republicans say we should scrap the bill and start over again. in 1994 newt gingrich very proudly killed mrs. clinton's health care efforts. we have waited 16 years, 12 years we had republicans in control of this house. we had six years with the republican senate, republican house, and republican president and nothing was offered. what you're saying today is, let's kill the democratic bill and we'll wait another 16 years to 2026 until we try again. the americans are going into bankruptcy, 2/3 of them because of health care. and we cannot wait any longer. the time has come for a vote,

folks. let's stand up and tell the american people, you want to wait until 2026 to try again. that doesn't make sense. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. paulsen: madam speaker, the health care debate has aroused the american public like few other issues ever have. for months the american people have stood up and said they don't want the government in charge of health care and they don't want the bill that's currently moving through congress. i have received thousands of emails and phone calls and letters from my constituents and the vast majority of them are opposed to this bill. how long will it take for washington to listen to the american public? congress should heed the will of the american people and start over on bipartisan reform that will lower health care costs for everyone. but instead, the speaker and the house leadership are now suggesting they may pass this

controversial bill without members even actually having to vote on it. using a legislative sleight of hand to pass an unpopular bill, represents an arrogance in washington that is absolutely becoming so frustrating we have to change politics and business as usual in congress. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from the district of columbia, for what purpose do you rise? without objection, so ordered, the gentlelady is recognized. ms. norton: madam speaker, the american people are fed up with the most costly health care system in the world with too little good health to show for it. we are 38 of 195 countries in life expectancy. pity those who think they can run on the theme, repeal health care reform. democrats oppose bush's version of drugs for seniors because unlike our health care bill that's coming to the floor, the bush plan added billions to the deficit, didn't pay for the

bill, and cut seniors off with a doughnut hole. but we never ran on the outrageous theme, repeal prescription drugs for seniors. instead we vowed to fix the prescription drug law if americans would give us control of the congress. they did and we are. we are closing the doughnut hole and we are paying for it. you're entitled to criticize, indeed to change, the health care reform americans have been waiting for almost 100 years. it is simply a fool's errand -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. ms. norton: and madness to try to repeal it. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> madam speaker request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. thompson: madam speaker, from the "cincinnati enquirer" to "the washington post" the editorials today tell the democrats to stop this health care reform and start again. i agree because i have always

said health care works to increasing access. this bill fails. the senate bill expands medicaid to cover families earning 133% of poverty level. the medicare rules will exclude under this proposal. some 40% of family practice physicians currently do not accept medicaid patients. this is expected to increase to 60%. some 60% specialists do not accept medicaid patients. this is expected to skyrocket to 80%. this bill expands medicaid beyond its capacity. it cuts medicare for seniors and leaves malpractice tort reform untouched and skyrocketing costs in place. this bill has the potential to bankrupt rural hospitals that have a disproportionate share of the problems inherent in the bill. this adds up to less access and lower quality. that is not reform. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, the united states and israel have long

shared and important friendship. that friendship is rooted in close moral and strategy bonds built on common values, common interest, and common concerns. today that friendship is being tested. but we must not allow ourselves to be distracted from the concerns and goals that bring us together. the threat of a nuclear iran is too great and the peace process is too important for us to spend more time engaging in critical rhetoric of our most important ally. it is time to put aside the rhetoric and reaffirm our bonds with israel. we must make it clear we are united in our opposition to a nuclear iran. while no one gains by an escalation ever tensions, you must make it clear that we value and support our relationship with the state and people of israel. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> permission to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman is recognized. >> madam speaker, right now behind closed doors negotiations are taking place on the $1 trillion bill to

provide for the government takeover of health care. i find it baffling that instead of talking about jobs my friends on the other side of the aisle continue a path toward radically changing 20% of our economy. small businesses continue to struggle. but rather than creating an environment that eases financial burdens on business, the administration and this congress are creating unternt through health care takeovers, cap and tax, deficit spending, looming tax increases. a recent analysis of the current health care bill shows it could cost america one million jobs by the end of this decade. that is unacceptable. i reason cently polled my constituents, 2/3 are opposed to the health care bill. they want congress to start over, focus on items we agree on. let's return to the question of how we can make health care more accessible, more efficient, and less expensive. let's kill this bill and save american freedom and our economy. thank you. i deem back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the

gentlelady from pennsylvania rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentlelady is recognized. miss sha wars: families across -- ms. schwartz: families across our nation understand the status quo in health care is not working. they are calling upon us to pass uniquely american solution to ensure that all americans have access to meaningful, affordable health coverage, what is what this congress is committed to do. health care reform means commonsense consumer protections like whibt -- protections like whibt -- prohibiting insurers strengthening medicare for seniors which means closing but don't let all. improving quality in health care services and a challenge that

faces all of us as taxpayers and users of health care services. this is not only paid for but it reduces the federal deficit by $100 billion. >> the ladies time has expired. >> now was that time to act. >> the ladies time has expired. for what reason does the the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mrs. schmidt: thank you, madam speaker. yesterday bloomberg reported what moodies has been saying all year. moodies once again reminded the united states that we are moving substantially closer to losing our triple-a credit rating doing -- due to the rising cost of our debt service. the u.s. will spend 7% of our revenue this year just on servicing our debt. by 2013, moodys estimates we

will spend 11% of our revenue just to pay the interest on our national debt. this would be a higher percentage than every other top rated country. fortunately we can protect our credit rating by reining in run away spending and reducing our debt. but what does this president and democratically controlled congress do? they want to ram down a new huge entitlement program called the health care bill riddled with awful policy and budget gimmicks that mask its true im pact through the house maybe even without an official vote. the truth is this health care bill will choke our economy and saddle our children with $500 billion in new taxes and deficits. far worse than they are now. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. so ordered. >> thank you, madam speaker, few regions in the nation are suffering more from the recession than the san joaquin valley of california.

the three biggest cities in my district, merced, stockton, and mow defendanto have some of the highest -- mow defendanto -- mow desto -- modesto have some of the highest foreclosure rates in the country. my district has been ravaged that come in the aftermath ofñr hurricanes. 12 days ago the democratic congress passed the hire act to help create jobs, strengthen our economy, and bring help to the communities like mine that need it. it provides tax incentives and credits for businesses to hire unemployed workers and help small businesses invest and expand. this commonsense legislation will help countless unemployed americans back on company payrolls. it's high time for the senate to finally pass this bill and send it to president obama. nowhere is this bill more necessary than in the san joaquin valley. we needed help last week. we needed it a year ago. we needed it a year ago. economic relief

they but those claims are patently false. just look at the most glaring example. the bill counts for 10 year tax increases amounting to $1 million and cutting medicare costs to half trillion dollars, but it only counts for six years of spending. so what is the real cost of this bill? what do you do when you compare 10 years spending with 10 years

of taxes and medicare costs? $2.3 trillion. that's nowhere near budget neutral and will drive the deficit up much higher than it is. let's defeat this bill. madam speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered, the gentlelady is recognized. ms. speier: you know, it's time for us to stop talking in generalalitys and jibberish. it's time to start talking about real people and their real experiences. one thing all of us can agree on is that we trust our doctors. i just received a letter from a doctor in my district who is an e.r. doc. four years ago his ininsurance premium for anthem blue cross for a family of four was $439 a month. this year that same policy will cost him $2,008 a month, a 373%

increase since 2006. what makes this especially hard to take is that in 2005 dr. bressler and his practice was forced by blue cost to accept a contract with a 60% reduction in payment. dr. bressler calls anthem blue cross throttle barriers. i assume he uses harsher language when not talking with congress. this is a fight between the insurance industry and american doctors, families and working people. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania se? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman is recognized. mr. shuster: the next few days will show the american people if they have health care.

in my district they strongly and vocally oppose this plan and i hear it every day in phone calls and emails. i hear it when i go to the grocery store and to a restaurant in my district. people come up, bill, oppose this bill, stop this bill. and i fully intend to vote against it. i've also talked to the small businesses and large businesses across this country. they oppose it also because it's creating great uncertainty for them. and this great uncertainty is causing harm to our economy. they're not hiring new employees because of the uncertainty of the cost this bill will have on them. they're not investing in their businesses because of the uncertainty these mandates will have, will push onto their businesses. this is the uncertainty that's keeping our unemployment rate at 10% and job creaths is stagnant. -- creation is stagnant. the democrats' health care plan is reckless and i believe it will put america on a path to financial ruin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired.

for what purpose does the gentlelady from nevada rise? ms. titus: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered, the gentlelady is recognized. ms. titus: thank you, madam speaker. last week i hosted a telephone town hall with more than 3,500 people tuned in from district three. this was an excellent opportunity to hear directly from my constituents about the issues that are important to their lives. this was the sixth telephone town hall that i participated in it. in addition, we've answered some 95,000 letters, held 10 congress on the corners and hosted five workshops. this means of communication has helped me to be a powerful voice for the people of district three and to provide as much transparency as possible about the proceedings here in washington. in fact, thanks to these efforts, i've put $1.6 million directly in the pockets of southern nevada by fighting for veterans to get their benefits, seniors to get their social security benefits, and

homeowners to receive loan modifications that keep them in their homes. i've made it a top priority to stay closely connected to my constituents, fighting for them in washington while serving them in southern nevada. and i encourage them to call on me anytime. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. so ordered. >> madam speaker, i rise today to encourage the rejection of this health care bill. the american people have spoken out time after time and i'm puzzled why congress is still considering it. done in secrecy, this bill will cost jobs, raise taxes and slash medicare benefits. and as a physician, i know this bill will be bad for patients, it's terrible for our economy and is damaging to the very people we are trying to help.

although the past is no guarantee of the future, it is, however, instructive. this administration has a failed stimulus package, failed banking system, failed cap and trade and numerous questionable interventions into general motors, a.i.g., fannie mae, freddie mac and others. this kind of track record gives the american public no reason to trust in administration with this health care. i urge my colleagues to listen to the will of the american people and vote no. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman is recognized. mr. or tease: congress is waiting desperately to --

mr. hinojosa: as subcommittee chair of higher education, lifelong learning and competitiveness, i call on my colleagues in the house to put the ininsured and our students and families first. the student aid and fiscal responsibility act, known as safra, which we passed in the house in september, must be included as part of the final health care reconciliation legislation. safra makes the single largest investment in college financial aid in history. it's bigger than the g.i. bill. it expands accessibility and affordability in higher education by investing tens of billions of dollars in pell grants, building a world class community college system, strengthening early education programs and making landmark investments of $2.55 billion in historically black colleges and universities, hispanic-serving institutions, tribally controlled colleges and universities and other minority

serve institutions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> to address the house for one minute and i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman is recognized. mr. olson: the process that the democrats will use to ram through their government-run health care program through this house is truly deplorable and like leeling unconstitutional. -- and likely unconstitutional. article 1, section 7 of the constitution clearly states that both chambers must pass their bills by a vote. then, the bill sent to the president for his signature before we can reconcile a bill here in congress. it's unconscionable to disregard these principles after the american people have clearly said no to this plan. they told congress to go back to the drawing board and find a

solution. it's wrong to flaunt the constitution and the will of the american people by forcing this proposal down their throats. madam speaker, it will be a sad day for this institution and our great nation if a proposal of this nature comes to the floor of the house under these circumstances. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. payne: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. payne: today i'm urging my colleagues to step up to the plate with courage and vote for passage of this critical legislation. if we don't move forward, the american people will be faced with the grave consequences due to our inaction. rising health costs are crushing american families, forcing small businesses to choose between health care and jobs. one out of every $6 in the u.s.

economy is spent on health care today. if we do nothing in 30 years $1 out of every $3 in our economy will be tied up in health care. if we fail to pass health care reform, families could see their spending on premiums and out-of-pocket insurance costs rise 34% in five years and 79% in 10. without reform, every four years 3.5 million american jobs will be lost. more importantly, if we fail to pass reform, insurance companies will be allowed to continue to deny coverage of pre-existing conditions. insurance companies will be allowed to drop coverage when you get sick. i urge you to pass this bill now. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman is recognized. mr. wolf: thank you. madam speaker, i'm deeply concerned about reports that the majority party may try to move a health care reform bill through the house without a vote. to move such sweeping

legislation, especially considering the price tag using the majority of the american people do not support the health care reform bill presently before congress. it spends money we do not have, cuts the medicare program, make sure that the medicare program is protected for the american people in a bipartisan bill. where is the accountability? where is the transparency? americans expect more and deserve more. what the democrats are threatening to do it is unseemly. there needs to be an up and down vote on help and care -- on health care. >> for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? without objection, so ordered. >> i often wonder what part of the world my colleagues are living and on the other side of

the aisle. if i -- i arrived here on november 5, on november 6 there was an up and dune vote on a major health care reform bill. the senate did it on christmas eve. there has been an up or down vote. we can now pass it onto the president, get it signed and simultaneously make corrections in the senate. sounds to me like that's an open process and we've been at this now for more than a year here and this nation for more in an a comprentry trying to provide health care for all. and let's keep in mind that our economy absolutely demands that we take action now. 17% of our economy's being used. the more we spend the more uninsured we have. we saw -- we solved those problems with this bill. it's time for action. it's time to stop saying no and get on with solving a major fundamental problem here in america. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise?

>> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. latta: madam speaker, 233 years ago this may a group of american patriots met in philadelphia to create a constitution which has been the guiding light to freedom-loving people around the world. now, as we gather here, the majority is planning a procedural gimmick to get around having to vote for a health care bill that americans don't want or can't afford. let's not circumvent the constitution. outside independence hall where the -- outside -- when the constitutional convention concluded in 1787, a mrs. poul of philadelphia reportedly asked benjamin franklin, well, doctor, what do we got, a republic or a monarchy? with no hesitation whatsoever franklin said, a republic if you can keep it. let's keep it constitution. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the

gentlelady from hawaii rise? ms. hirono: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. hirono: your health or your home? americans should not have to make this choice but all too often they have to because of the high cost of health care. leslie of maui called my office yesterday to tell me about her 20-year-old niece. last year her niece collapsed and fell into a seize your. medics rushed her to the hospital and ultimately she was diagnosed with epilepsy. her niece had a part-time retail job that did not offer health insurance to their employees. because of the emergency care and subsequent follow-up visits fought doctor, her niece was recently forced to sell her house so she could pay her medical bills. leslie called me because she wanted to make sure i will support health care reform. she told me that while it's too late for her niece it's not too late for our country. i couldn't agree more. private health insurance companies run a business. their goal is to make money for their shareholders.

they pay their c.e.o.'s millions of dollars a year while raising health care costs for the rest of us. who's side are you on? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. poe: madam speaker, we're having the vote of the century on the senate health care bill, but there's a sneaky snake oil gimmick to pass the bill without voting on it. first, we're passing bills without reading them, and now they want us to pass bills without actually voting on the bill. the trick is to deem the senate bill passed without ever having a straight up or down vote. and it's a trick. when we vote on the rules for debate, they want to make that count as the vote on the health care bill. instead of actually voting on the health care bill. let's have an up or down vote on this bill and not hide behind some procedural mumbo jumbo. the constitution says in all cases the votes of both houses

shall be determined by yeas and nays. it doesn't say anything about deeming in the constitution. to obtain votes for government-run health care, back room secret deals are being made in the caverns of this building and it's shameful. this is slaughtering the house rules, and that's just the way it is. i deem back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? mr. cohen: address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. cohen: the gentleman from texas was indeed correct, it's going to be a historic vote of 100 years which started with teddy roosevelt who talked about the need for health care in this country and that debate was continued by richard nixon and howard baker. we need health care reform in this country and it's never been more critical than now when it's eating up our federal budget, our individual budgets

and hurting us economically. but beyond that, we need a compassionate and responsible government, and we have a president who is compassionate, responsible and trying like nelson mandela to reach out to his former enemies and have bipartisanship and he's had none of it but he continues to try and we need to support this president, support our country, preserve our economy and provide health care like every other industrialized nation in this world does and make america among the leaders and not the followers. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman is recognized. mr. tiahrt: as the democrats claim that the obama health care bill will help balance the budget, but reviewing those calculations show we're going to collect higher taxes for 10 years. imagine that. four years of health care taxes

with no health care. imagine if you wanted to buy a house and you had to make four years of payments before you could move in and then finally when you moved in you find out you had rationed use of the property. you couldn't choose where to park your car like in a garage. you had to drive blocks away in a public parking lot and then wait in line for a stall. 10 years of taxes, six years of benefits. followed by rationed care. you wouldn't buy a house under those terms and congress shouldn't pass health care bill under those terms either. we can do better. we can have health care reform that lowers cost by addressing pre-existing conditions, by lowering defensive medicine costs, by having commonsense tort reform. the republican alternative lowers the price of health care by 10%, according to the congressional budget office. that's what this congress ought to pass. i deem back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas rise? >> one minute, madam speaker.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman is recognized. >> i want to read to you an email i just received from one of my staffers back in overland park, kansas, my congressional office there. and it came at 11:55 a.m. when i leave this job and have to seek new insurance, i will be largely uninsurable dew to my pre-existing condition, breast cancer, whether i show any remaining signs of that disease at that time or not. i was so fortunate last year to have this job and the federal employee insurance. the cancer treatment i received cost over $50,000. my husband and i would have lost every penny we had and then some if we had not had this coverage. without a bill like this one, i will likely not have access to that kind of coverage ever again due to my cancer diagnosis at the age of 24. without quality coverage and if god forbid i should ever have to go through this again it will undoubtedly break us that time around. we must have reform.

thank you, dennis. this, folks, is what it's all about. people like this around the country. we've got to do something and reform our health insurance system, our health care system. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. i think there is unanimous will on both sides of this chamber to take care of the uninsurable people because of pre-existing conditions. right now. but this side is willing to address that in stand-alone legislation or it would already have been passed, unfortunately. i'm surprised they keep pounding on that over again. yesterday in ohio the president said the democrats needed courage to pass his national health care plan. sadly as we speak leaders across the aisle are meeting behind closed doors to invent a creative way to improve the president's health care plan without requiring members of the house to take an up or down vote on the actual bill. the legitimacy of something as controversial as the health

care bill would be further clouded by such clever parliamentary maneuvers. that's not courage. that's malfeasance. it's an absolute betrayal of the public trust t would represent an unprecedented abuse of power that would take this nation down a dangerous path. we are a nation of laws. with these laws are not convenient, you shouldn't simply ignore them. we should follow them regardless of the outcome. otherwise everything about our democratic republic is at risk. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york rise? >> to address the house for one minute. extend and revise my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. ms. clarke: madam speaker, i know that health care costs are, we all know that health care costs are unsustainable. they are still crushing families, small businesses, and large companies alike. when people lose their jobs, they lose their health insurance. even people who do have jobs and want coverage but have pre-existing conditions still can't get coverage. we are closer than ever to reforming our nation's broken

health insurance system with a plan that puts america back in control of their health care choices. hold insurance companies accountable and make coverage more affordable. as we move forward through this legislative process, i'm confident that our bill will make health insurance affordable for the middle class and small businesses by reducing premiums and out-of-pocket costs. give millions of americans access to affordable insurance choices through a new consecutive -- competitive health insurance market. and keep premiums down and it will close a disastrous doughnut hole that seniors are having to choose between lifesaving medication and food to eat. for over 12 years the ones republican-led congress has failed -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. clarke: we are going to do it now. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> permission to address the

house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. bilirakis: thank you, madam speaker. article 1, section 7 of the constitution says in order for a bill to become law it shall not pass the house of representatives and the senate. yet yesterday speaker pelosi endorsed the so-called slaughter rule. which would merely deem that the house has passed the senate health care bill and then sent it to president obama to sign without a direct recorded vote. this scheme is misguided, arrogant, and fundamentally wrong. the speaker reportedly added, nobody wants to vote for the senate bill. given the facts that among other things the $1 trillion bill is marred with special deals, mandates, tax hikes, and medicare cuts it is no wonder they don't want to vote for it. considering the wide ranging effects this trillion dollar effort to change health care will have, the american people deserve a clear up or down vote on this bill. thank you, madam speaker.

i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. ellison: between the year 2000 and 2006, the republicans had the house, the senate, and the white house and they did nothing of good to help the american people. and now you listen to them and it sounds like they actually -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. mr. ellison: but they are not -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house will come to order. the gentleman deserves to be heard. the gentleman may continue. mr. ellison: if they were for the american people they would have done something in those six years of our people being affected by rescission. by pre-existing condition, by carrying young people on their health care policy of their parents until they are 26, about doing something about this doughnut hole. they would have done something about it but they didn't do anything other than make the

problem worse. if you listen to them, today, you would think they cared. but the evidence is before the american people they did nothing at all and now we are going to do something about it within a little more than one year of coming into office. who is on your side, america? you'll find out this week. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. wilson: madam speaker, i ask permission to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman is recognized. mr. wilson: madam speaker, yesterday's "wall street journal" highlights the process by which democrats are trying to pass this government health care takeover. the process is just as bad as the provisions of the bill. professor michael mcconnell, director of the constitutional law center at stanford law school wrote the article entitled house -- health care vote and the constitution. mr. mcconnell presents the slaughter solution which is nothing more than a procedural trick that deems the senate bill passed without ever having a straight up and down vote.

the article explains the slaughter solution cannot be squared with article 1, section 7 of the constitution. senate rules protect against majority overreach by allowing a determined minority to filibuster most types of legislation. madam speaker, americans need jobs not a law which nfib claims will kill 1.6 million jobs. in conclusion, got bless -- god bless our troops, we'll never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. davis: thank you. madam speaker, opponents often cite polls saying the american people don't want congress to pass health care reform. but i have talked to my constituents and i have listened closely to what they expect from the system. they don't think pre-existing conditions should stop you from getting coverage. insurance company shouldn't just drop you. and nobody, nobody should face

an increase in premiums like what just happened in california. madam speaker, it has been a difficult and a long debate, but we are closer than any time in history to putting into law the health security americans want. let's finish the job and put patients first. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yielding back her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the gentleman is recognized. >> -- mr. boustany: the american people say they don't want a government takeover of health care. all they get from the tone deaf liberals running congress is the latest attempt to ram this bill through. now this latest proposal is the slaughter solution where they are going to try to run it through without an actual vote. maybe some of them have been around so long they have forgotten what article 1 section 7 of the constitution says, it actually takes a vote here in this house for any bill to pass.

i hope this bill doesn't pass because we need health care reform. we need to lower the cost of health care which their bill doesn't do. we need to address pre-existing conditions. we don't want a government takeover of health care. if you listen to the american people, what they are saying very loudly and clearly is scrap this bill, let's go back to the table, and start over again. speaker pelosi and her liberal lieutenants might run congress but the american people won this country and their voices will be heard. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? mr. yarmuth: request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman is recognized. mr. yarmuth: madam speaker, every time i hear republicans talking about health care reform, they say the american people don't want it. they say it so much that i think they are beginning to try to convince themselves that it's true. but there is a national poll that shows what the real story is. they asked, of all the people who are opposed to health care that say they are, how many people are opposed because it doesn't go far enough. 40%. almost 40% said that was the

reason. they will not be unhappy when we pass health care reform. they will be exstactic. like the shopkeeper i talked to over christmas who said she was against what we are doing because she has diabetes and she can't wait four years for the help she needs. now, the american people will applaud us when we pass comprehensive health care reform and i will consider it >> this week lawmakers are making a final push to get health care legislation to the president's desk. you can fault the latest on the only network that covers the nation's capital from gavel-to- gavel, c-span. you can go to our health care hub for text of bills and links to see what senators are saying by twitter. >> here is where the house is right now on health care legislation. on monday, the budget committee

approved what is called a shell bill by 21-16 mode. it goes next to the rules committee where they will add amendments to the senate version of the bill. once that happens, the full house will have the chance to debate and vote on the bill, possibly this week. all the health-care debate by watching c-span and by going to our health care website. up next on c-span, treasury secretary timothy geithner , followed by the senate confirmation hearing on the president's nomination for the ambassador to syria. and later, house debate on health care.

education secretary arne duncan goes to capitol hill tomorrow to testify on the president's proposal to overhaul that no child left behind at 3 live coverage of the education committee at 2:30 p.m. eastern time on our companion network, c-span3, and on our web site, c- span.org. >> c-span -- public affairs content available on radio, television, and on line. you can also communicate with us on pointer, facebook, and what -- one twitter, facebook, and youtube. >> timothy geithner told congress today that the worst days of the economic crisis are behind this. he is testifying with other top of ministration officials before the house appropriations committee. he also warned that u.s. debt

levels are unsustainable. this hearing is 3.5 hours. good morning, everybody. we are here today to discuss the budget and the economic situation and plans for the coming year. these plans need to be put in proper context. president obama inherited four major cost drivers, the cost of two wars, the cost of t.a.r.p., the revenue losses due to the economic downturn. and the revenue loss due to two unpaid tax cuts benefiting the wealthy to a very large measure. these circumstances didn't just happen overnight, and they can't be fixed overnight, either.

however, the american people are very clear in their expectations. their main concerns are jobs, family income, and keeping the united states strong at home and abroad. president obama has virtually his first action last year, asked congress to pass an economic recovery package, aimed at reducing job losses and preventing another great depression. i would ask the staff to put chart one up on the screen, please. there we go. as chart number one shows, the cost of the recovery act, including interest, which is demonstrated by the bar on the right of the chart, is less than 10% of the total deficit legacy that we face over the coming years. $1.1 billion versus about $11 billion.

now, we all know that we have to address the debt and the long-term budget deficits in order to provide for the long-term health of our nation. but as we do so, we cannot fail to deal with three other serious deficits. the jobs deficit. the income deficit, and the opportunity deficit. this economy has shed the 8.4 million jobs since december 2007, almost one tenth of the labor force sun employed. and one-sixth is either unemployed are or underemployed. to ease that job loss, the congress and administration cooperated in passing the recovery act. i now invite your attention to chart number two. some people say that the recovery act has not saved a single job. if they cannot see that that assertion is not true, it is simply, in my judgment, because they don't want to see.

as chart two demonstrates between december 2008 and march 2009, we lost 753,000 jobs a month. we enacted the recovery act in february of 2009. and it took several months for it to begin to take effect. as the chart demonstrates, in the three months from october of 2009, to january 2010, that job loss declined from a high of 750,000 to 35,000. a 95% reduction. while none of us will be satisfied until the economy is once again adding jobs, we've come a long way in the last year in turning the picture around. in each of the last couple of months, full-time employment has actually grown by hundreds of thousands. however the hole is deep and will take time and constant effort to fill it.

you know, every week somebody asks me why americans are so angry. i would ask it another way. why on earth wouldn't they be angry. they've been given the shaft for most of the last decade. the fact is most americans are suffering from a different kind of deficit. an income deficit. from the new deal until a generation ago. incomes were growing at about the same rate for everyone. from working families to the richest among us. since the '70s, however, almost all income gains have gone to the top. income for the middle fifth of american families rose only 15% from 1979 to 2006, and most of that growth came about because women were working much longer hours each year than three decades ago. in contrast, those with incomes in the top 10% saw their income grow by 133%.

those in the top 10% now receive half of all income in america. chart number three, if the staff would put it on the screen, please, chart number three shows that even -- that those even higher on the income ladder have had mind-boggling income gains. in 2007, the average income of the top one hundredth of the 1%, reached $35 million, up almost ten fold over the last three decades. meanwhile, the rest of society was getting table scraps. we've seen the large of the transfer of income up the income ladder in recorded economic history. why shouldn't middle income taxpayers be angry? and since 2000, this income deficit has only been made worse by passage of huge tax cuts tilted toward the rich. some are still pushing to eliminate the estate tax that affects only the richest.

that is a prescription not to heal the patient but to poison it. what can we do to restore budget discipline. and active reforms would provide a safety net to families, allowing the top 2% of income to expire a schedule would also seems to me make sense. and there is one more deficit we ought to confront which is addressed by chart number four. the opportunity deficit is perhaps the most troubling of all that we face. many studies have shown that family income is a greater determinant of college graduation than the aptitude of students. among students who score in the top quarter on eighth grade math tests, the child of a wealthy family graduated -- the child of a wealthy family who has graduated from college, graduated 74% of the time.

while the child who came from a poor family graduated only 29% of the time. even though they demonstrated the same ability. as a matter of justice, we need to provide these low and middle-income kids the better education opportunities they need and they deserve. so in summary, this is the context in which our witnesses appear us before today to explain the administration's economic policies and putting policies. the context of how jobs will be created, how income differences can be reduced. and how opportunities can be created for those in the middle and lower-rung of our economic scale. we have with us today treasury secretary geithner, council on economic advisory chairman roemer, and director orszag, and after i call on mr. lewis for

whatever comments he'll be happy to make, we'll be happy to hear from our three witnesses. mr. lewis. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i digress before addressing specifically our panel. our late leader in the committee, jack murtha, almost threw people out of the room when they put up charts. that's almost entirely because we all know that charts can serve their own purpose. and indeed, it brings forth phrases, liars, darn liars and statistici statisticians. but in the meantime, i'd like to begin this morning by expressing our thanks to secretary geithner to director orszag and director roemer for being with us today. even as democrats and republicans remain divided on the many issues of the day, i believe we're all in